Hasierarako, ikus ondokoak:
Segida:
Argi geratu den moduan, Gaza eta Palestina direla eta, ez soilik Europa distopikoa bazik eta EFTA ere oso NATO zaleak dira.
Hortaz, belediko Euskal Herriaren independentzia, nahitaez, BRICs-en esparruan kokatu beharra daukagu, non printzipioz nazio-estatu bakoitzak bere moneta propioa erabiltzen eta erabili beharko duen-
Testuinguru orokorra:
(a) Politikan:
Autodeterminazio-eskubidea
Palestina versus Israel (gehi AEB + NATO, Pentagonoa eta EB) (24)
(…)
GAZA: Poesia, nazioarteko legeria eta autodeterminazio-eskubidea
(…)
Sir Mr President distinguished members
0:08
of the court it’s a great honor and
0:10
privilege to appear before you and to
0:13
represent the league of Arab
0:15
states the Palestinian people have been
0:18
denied the exercise of their legal right
0:21
to
0:23
self-determination through the more than
0:25
Century long violent Colonial racist
0:29
effort to establish a nation state
0:32
exclusively for the Jewish people in the
0:35
land of mandatory
0:37
Palestine when this began after the
0:40
first world war the Jewish population of
0:43
that land was
0:45
11% forcibly implementing Zionism in
0:49
this demographic context has necessarily
0:53
involved the extermination or force
0:56
displacement of some of the non-jewish
0:59
Palestinian
1:00
population the exercise of domination
1:03
over and subjugation dispossession and
1:08
immiseration of remaining non-jewish
1:11
Palestinians the immigration to that
1:13
land of Jewish people regardless of any
1:16
direct personal link and the denial of
1:20
Palestinian refugees the right to return
1:23
all operating through a racist
1:26
distinction privileging Jewish people
1:29
over non-w Jewish Palestinian
1:31
people this has necessitated serious
1:35
violations of all the fundamental Yos
1:38
kogan’s and erga omn Norms of
1:41
international law the right of
1:44
self-determination the prohibitions on
1:47
aggression genocide crimes against
1:50
humanity racial discrimination aparte
1:54
and torture and the core protections of
1:58
IHL today I I will address first
2:01
violations of international law arising
2:05
out of the regime of racial domination
2:08
apartheid perpetrated against the
2:10
Palestinian people across the entire
2:13
land of historic
2:15
Palestine and then second the
2:19
existential illegality of Israel’s
2:22
occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip
2:25
and West Bank including East Jerusalem
2:28
since 1967
2:30
as a necessary prerequisite I must begin
2:34
with this special right granted to the
2:36
Palestinian people in the league
2:39
Covenant the legal right of
2:41
self-determination of the Palestinian
2:43
people originates in the sacred trust
2:47
obligations of article 22 of the Lee
2:50
Covenant part of the versai
2:52
treaty Palestine an A-Class mandate
2:56
under British colonial rule was after
2:59
the first world war supposed to have its
3:03
existence as an independent state
3:06
provisionally
3:07
recognized a sue generous right of
3:12
self-determination the UK and other
3:14
members of the leag council attempted to
3:17
bypass this incorporating the 1917 Bala
3:21
declaration commitment to establishing a
3:24
national home for the Jewish people in
3:27
Palestine into the instrument
3:30
stipulating how the Mandate would
3:33
operate however the council had no legal
3:36
power to bypass the Covenant in this way
3:40
it acted ultrav virus and the relevant
3:43
Provisions were legally
3:46
void there was and is no legal basis in
3:51
that mandate instrument for either a
3:54
specifically Jewish state in Palestine
3:57
or the UK’s failure to discharge the
4:01
sacred trust obligation to implement
4:04
Palestinian
4:08
self-determination after the second
4:09
world war a self-determination right
4:12
applicable to Colonial peoples generally
4:16
crystallized in international law for
4:19
the Palestinian people this essentially
4:22
corresponded to and supplemented the
4:25
pre-existing Covenant right regarding
4:28
the same single
4:30
territory the 1947 proposal to partition
4:34
Palestine was contrary to this the Arab
4:38
rejection and affirmation of the legal
4:41
status quo in 1948 then Palestine was
4:46
legally a single territory with a single
4:50
population enjoying a right of
4:52
self-determination on a unitary
4:56
basis despite this a state of Israel
5:00
specifically for Jewish people was
5:02
proclaimed in
5:04
1948 by those controlling
5:07
78% more than 34s of Palestine
5:12
accompanied by the force displacement of
5:15
a significant number of the non-jewish
5:17
Palestinian population the nacba
5:22
catastrophe this illegal secession was
5:25
an egregious violation of Palestinian
5:28
self-determination
5:30
Israel’s statehood was recognized and
5:32
Israel admitted as a UN member despite
5:37
this
5:38
illegality Israel is not the legal
5:41
continuation or successor of the
5:44
Mandate this violation of Palestinian
5:47
self-determination is ongoing and
5:50
unresolved two key elements are First
5:55
Palestinian people not displaced from
5:57
the land proclaimed to be of Israel in
6:00
48 and their
6:03
descendants have been forced to live as
6:05
Citizens presently they constitute
6:09
17.2% of a state conceived to be of and
6:14
for another racial group under the
6:17
domination of that group necessarily
6:20
treated as second class because of their
6:24
race second Palestinian people displaced
6:28
from that land land and their
6:31
descendants cannot
6:34
return these are serious breaches of the
6:37
right of
6:38
self-determination the prohibitions of
6:40
racial discrimination and apartheid and the
6:43
right of return they must end
6:48
immediately as if this ongoing nacba was
6:52
not catastrophic enough in
6:55
1967 Israel captured the remaining 22%
6:59
of of historic Palestine the Gaza Strip
7:02
and West Bank including East Jerusalem
7:05
the
7:06
naxa it’s maintained that use of force
7:10
to remain in control for the 57-year
7:14
period
7:15
since for more than half a century then
7:19
a state defined to be of and for Jewish
7:22
people
7:24
exclusively has governed the entire land
7:27
of historic Palestine and and the
7:29
Palestinian people there and the regime
7:32
of racial domination apartheid and denying
7:36
return has been extended
7:39
throughout in the case of Palestinians
7:41
living in the occupied territory this
7:44
has involved the same serious violations
7:47
of international law supplemented by
7:50
serious violations of norms applicable
7:53
in occupied
7:55
territory indeed these people are
7:58
subject to an an even more extreme form
8:01
of racist domination as they aren’t even
8:05
citizens of the state exercising
8:08
authority over
8:09
them even in East Jerusalem which Israel
8:13
has purported to Annex the majority
8:16
non-jewish Palestinian residents don’t
8:19
have
8:20
citizenship whereas Jewish residents
8:23
including illegal settlers are
8:26
citizens just as in territorial Israel
8:30
in occupied territory these serious
8:33
violations concerning how Israel
8:36
exercises authority over the Palestinian
8:39
people must end
8:43
immediately however here a more
8:47
fundamental matter must also be
8:51
addressed the illegality of the exercise
8:55
of authority
8:58
itself the enduring Palestinian right of
9:01
self-determination means that the
9:03
Palestinian people and the state of
9:06
Palestine not Israel are sovereign over
9:10
the territory Israel captured in ‘
9:13
67 for Israel the land is extr
9:16
Territorial and given what I said about
9:19
the Mandate territory over which it has
9:22
no legal Sovereign
9:25
entitlement despite this Israel has
9:29
purported to Annex East Jerusalem and
9:32
taken various actions there and in the
9:34
rest of the West Bank constituting deure
9:38
and de facto purported annexation
9:41
including implanting
9:43
settlements it is Israeli policy that
9:47
Israel should be not only the exclusive
9:51
authority over the entire land between
9:53
the river and the sea but also the
9:56
exclusive Sovereign Authority there
10:00
there this constitutes a complete
10:04
repudiation of Palestinian
10:06
self-determination as a legal right
10:09
since it empties the right entirely of
10:13
any territorial
10:16
content actualizing this through de
10:19
facto and deor purported annexation is
10:23
first a serious violation of Palestinian
10:26
self-determination and second
10:31
because it’s a uh enabled through the
10:35
use of force a violation of the
10:37
prohibition on the purported acquisition
10:40
of territory through the use of force in
10:43
the law on the use of force and so an
10:47
aggression serious violations of further
10:50
areas of law regulating the conduct of
10:53
the occupation are also being
10:56
perpetrated notably the prohibitions on
10:59
planting settlements and altering unless
11:02
absolutely prevented the legal political
11:05
social and religious statu
11:08
quo the occupation is therefore
11:11
existentially illegal because of its use
11:15
to actualize purported
11:18
annexation to end this serious
11:21
illegality it must be terminated Israel
11:24
must renounce all sovereignty claims and
11:28
all settlements must be removed
11:32
immediately however this is not the only
11:34
basis on which the occupation’s
11:37
existential legality must be
11:40
addressed we need to delve deeper into
11:43
both the law of
11:45
self-determination and the law on the
11:47
use of
11:48
force beginning with
11:51
self-determination this right when
11:53
applied to the Palestinian people in the
11:56
territory Israel captured in ‘ 67
11:59
is a right to be entirely self-governing
12:03
free from Israeli
12:05
domination consequently the Palestinian
12:09
people have a legal right to the
12:11
immediate end of the
12:14
occupation and Israel has a correlative
12:17
legal duty to immediately terminate the
12:21
occupation this right exists and
12:25
operates simply and exclusively because
12:29
the Palestinian people are entitled to
12:31
it it does not depend on others agreeing
12:35
to its
12:37
realization it is a
12:39
right it’s a repudiation of trusteeship
12:43
whereby colonial peoples were ostensibly
12:46
to be granted freedom only if and when
12:49
they were deemed ready because of their
12:52
stage of development determined by the
12:55
racist standard of
12:57
civilization the anti Colonial
12:59
self-determination rule replaced this
13:03
with a right based on the automatic
13:06
immediate entitlement of all people to
13:10
freedom without
13:13
preconditions in the words of general
13:15
assembly
13:16
1514 inadequacy of preparedness should
13:20
never serve as a pretext for delaying
13:25
Independence some suggest that the
13:28
Palestinian people were offered and
13:30
rejected deals that could have ended the
13:33
occupation and therefore Israel can
13:36
maintain it pending a
13:38
settlement even assuming arguendo the
13:42
veracity of this account the deals
13:45
involved a further loss of The Sovereign
13:48
territory of the Palestinian
13:50
People Israel canot lawfully demand
13:54
concessions on Palestinian rights as the
13:58
price for ending its impediment to
14:01
Palestinian
14:03
Freedom this would mean Israel using
14:06
Force to coerce the Palestinian people
14:09
to give up some of their peremptory
14:12
legal
14:13
rights illegal in the law on the use of
14:16
force and necessarily voiding the
14:20
relevant terms of any agreement
14:23
reached the Palestinian people are
14:26
legally entitled to object a further
14:29
loss of land over which they have an
14:33
exclusive legal peremptory
14:36
right any such rejection makes no
14:40
difference to Israel’s immediate legal
14:43
obligation to end the
14:47
occupation turning to the law on the use
14:49
of
14:50
force Israel’s control over the
14:53
Palestinian territory since 67 as a
14:56
military occupation is an ongo goinging
14:59
use of force as such its existential
15:03
legality is determined by the law on the
15:06
use of force as a general matter beyond
15:09
the specific issue of
15:12
annexation Israel captured the Gaza
15:15
Strip and West Bank from Egypt and
15:17
Jordan in the war it launched against
15:20
them and
15:21
Syria it claimed to be acting in
15:24
self-defense anticipating a non-
15:27
immediately imminent
15:29
attack the war was over after 6 days
15:33
peace treaties between Israel and Egypt
15:36
and Jordan was subsequently
15:39
adopted despite this Israel maintained
15:42
control of the territory continuing the
15:45
use of force enabling its
15:48
capture Israel’s 67 war was illegal in
15:52
the Yad Bellum even assuming arguendo
15:56
its claim of a feared attack
15:59
States can’t lawfully use force in non
16:03
immediately imminent anticipatory
16:07
self-defense
16:09
alternatively assuming again arguendo
16:12
that the war was
16:13
lawful the justification ended after 6
16:18
days however the Yos ad Bellum
16:21
requirements continued to apply to the
16:25
occupation as itself A continuing use of
16:30
force in 1967 with self-determination
16:34
well established in international law
16:37
states could not lawfully use Force to
16:41
retain control over a self-determination
16:45
unit captured in war unless the legal
16:49
test justifying the initial use of force
16:53
also Justified on the same basis the use
16:58
of for force in retaining
17:01
control moreover this justification
17:04
would need to
17:06
continue not only in the immediate
17:09
aftermath but for more than half a
17:13
century
17:15
manifestly This legal test has not been
17:19
met Israel’s exercise of control over
17:22
the Gaza Strip and West Bank through the
17:25
use of force has been illegal in the at
17:28
Bellum since the capture of the
17:31
territory or at least very soon after
17:36
afterwards the occupation is therefore
17:39
again existentially illegal in the law
17:42
on the use of force and
17:45
aggression this time as a general matter
17:48
Beyond illegality specific to
17:52
annexation to terminate this serious
17:54
violation the occupation must likewise
17:57
end in
18:00
immediately what of Israel’s current
18:02
military action in
18:04
Gaza this is not a war that began in
18:09
October
18:11
2023 it’s a drastic scaling up of the
18:15
force exercised there and in the West
18:18
Bank on a continual basis since
18:23
67 a justification for a new phase in an
18:27
ongoing illegal use of force cannot be
18:32
constructed solely out of the
18:34
consequences of violent resistance to
18:38
that illegal use of
18:40
force otherwise an illegal use of force
18:43
would be rendered lawful because those
18:46
subject to it violently resisted
18:49
circular logic with a perverse
18:53
outcome more generally Israel cannot
18:56
lawfully use Force to control control
18:58
the Palestinian territory for security
19:01
purposes pending an agreement providing
19:04
security
19:06
guarantees states can only lawfully use
19:09
Force outside their borders in extremely
19:13
narrow
19:15
circumstances beyond that they must
19:18
address they must address security
19:20
concerns non
19:24
forcibly the USA UK and Zambia suggest
19:28
here that there is a su generous
19:31
applicable legal framework an Israeli
19:35
Palestinian Lex
19:37
specialis this somehow supersedes the
19:41
rules of international law determining
19:44
whether the occupation is existentially
19:47
lawful instead we have a new rule
19:51
justifying the occupation until there is
19:54
a peace agreement meeting Israeli
19:56
security needs
20:00
this is the law as these states would
20:03
like it to be not the law as it
20:07
is it has no basis in resolution 242
20:13
Oslo or any other resolutions or
20:17
agreements
20:18
actually you are being invited to do
20:22
away with the very operation of some of
20:26
the fundamental peremptory rules of
20:29
international law
20:32
itself as a result the matters these
20:35
rules conceive as rights vested in the
20:38
Palestinian people would be realized
20:42
only if agreement is reached and only on
20:46
the basis of such
20:48
agreement at Best if there is an
20:51
agreement this means one that need not
20:54
be compatible with Palestinian
20:57
peremptory legal rights determined only
21:01
by the acute power imbalance in Israel’s
21:05
favor at worst if there is no
21:08
agreement this means that the indefinite
21:11
continuation of Israeli rule over the
21:14
Palestinian people in the
21:16
opt on the basis of racist Supremacy and
21:20
a claim to sovereignty would be
21:25
lawful this is an affront
21:28
to the international rule of law to the
21:32
UN Charter imperative to settle disputes
21:36
in Conformity with international
21:39
law and to your judicial function as
21:43
Guardians of the international legal
21:47
system a final potential basis sometimes
21:50
invoked to justify continuing the
21:52
occupation should be
21:54
addressed occupation and human rights
21:57
law applicable to illegal and lawful
22:01
occupations
22:03
alike oblige Israel to address security
22:06
threats in occupied
22:09
territory however they only regulate the
22:12
conduct of an occupation when it exists
22:16
they don’t also provide a legal basis
22:19
for that existence
22:21
itself existential legality is
22:24
determined by the law of
22:26
self-determination and the yos Bellum
22:29
only there is no backdoor legal basis
22:33
for Israel to maintain the occupation
22:36
through the imperatives of occupation
22:38
and human rights
22:41
law in sum the occupation of the
22:44
Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank
22:47
including East Jerusalem is
22:49
existentially illegal on two mutually
22:53
reinforcing
22:55
bases first the law on the use of force
22:59
here the occupation is illegal both as a
23:02
use of force without valid
23:05
justification and because it’s enabling
23:07
an illegal purported
23:10
annexation as such it is an
23:13
aggression second the law of
23:16
self-determination here it’s illegal
23:18
again because of the association with
23:21
illegal purported
23:22
annexation and also more generally
23:26
because it is quite simply
23:28
an exercise of authority over the
23:31
Palestinian people that by its very
23:34
nature violates their right to
23:38
Freedom this multifaceted existential
23:42
illegality involving serious violations
23:44
of peremptory Norms has two key
23:48
consequences first the occupation must
23:51
end Israel must renounce its claim to
23:54
sovereignty over the Palestinian
23:56
territory all settle must be removed
24:00
immediately this is required to end the
24:03
illegality to discharge the positive
24:06
obligation to enable immediate
24:08
Palestinian
24:10
self-administration and because Israel
24:12
lacks any legal entitlement to exercise
24:17
Authority second in the absence of the
24:20
occupation ending
24:23
necessarily everything Israel does in
24:26
the Palestinian territory
24:28
lacks a valid International legal basis
24:32
and is therefore subject to the Namibia
24:36
exception
24:37
invalid not only those things violating
24:41
the law regulating the conduct of the
24:44
occupation those Norms entitle and
24:47
require Israel to do certain things but
24:50
this doesn’t alter the more fundamental
24:53
position from the law on the use of
24:55
force and
24:56
self-determination that Israel lacks any
25:00
valid authority to do
25:02
anything and whatever it does is illegal
25:07
even if compliant with or pursuant to
25:11
the conduct regulatory
25:15
rules I will close by quoting
25:18
Palestinian academic and poet rafat
25:22
allara1 from his final poem posted 36
25:25
days before he was killed by Israel in
25:29
Gaza on the 6th of December
25:36
2023 if I must die you must live to tell
25:42
my
25:43
story if I must die let it bring
25:48
hope let it be a
25:52
story
(…)
(b) Ekonomian:
Marx
Marx oraindik beharrezkoa ote da?
“… I think the important lesson for socialists here is that we need to have a different conception of how these social services and how the state should be organized. What should the relationship be between the state bureaucrats or the state employees, public sector workers, and the communities that they serve?
Should it be one in which they’re regulating and policing the recipients of the benefits that they’re giving out? Or should it be one in which these individuals are much more embedded organically with the communities that they’re working with and democratically accountable to them and the communities that are receiving these programs and various forms of social assistance actually play a direct role in themselves?
Deciding how they’re implemented and running them. And it’s a completely different model that we have to think through. I think of how these kinds of social welfare programs could be organized and set up, which would make them much harder to attack that very alienating top-down bureaucratic nature of the Keynesian welfare state really was part of the basis for the Thatcherite attack that people ended up very enthusiastically supporting in the 1980s and 1990s, even in the form of Tony Blair as head of the Labor Party.
So I think we have to think through a fundamentally different kind of state. The task for socialists is not more state or less state. That’s a social democratic question. The task for socialists is what kind of state do we want? Not just more state, but a fundamentally different and more democratic form of state that promotes new forms of democratic participation in the running of society, including social programs, but also the entire economy.”(…)
Lan bermea
Pavlina Tcherneva: Gobernuaren gastuaz eta pandemiaz geroztiko suspertzeaz
(c) MTM/MMT
MTM (Moneta-Teoria Modernoa) /MMT (Modern Monetary Theory)
Warren Mosler: Moneta-Teoria Modernoa-z (MTM-z)
Gehigarriak:
Mundu multipolarra versus unipolarra (prozesuan)
Randall Wray: (Dirua) Historiaren hasiera
Bill Mitchell (2024): MTM lentea. The MMT lens
Warren Mosler (2024): Gobernuaren Defizita = Sektore Pribatuaren Aurrezkia
Esperantzaz hitz bi (Bill Mitchell)
Donejurgin, 2024.03.04
